Intelligent Design

Why Does NBC News Continue to Employ a Known Liar?

Spread the love

See here. It seems to me that that a news organization’s reputation for veracity is its most critical asset, without which it is literally nothing. And it is not as if there isn’t an oversupply of pretty boys who can read the news. It’s as if they don’t care that they are throwing away what little credibility they had left. Can someone please help me make sense of this seemingly senseless decision?

16 Replies to “Why Does NBC News Continue to Employ a Known Liar?

  1. 1
    News says:

    Barry, I can possibly help, at least for a start.

    In the age of the Internet, veracity matters much less for a news organization than it did before.

    People who actually want to know what is going on can find out for themselves using the search engine while exercising good judgement.*

    But many people, including most of the viewership in this case, do not want to know what is going on. They want a version of the world that suits them, flatters them even.

    They don’t care if the guy is a liar as long as those are the lies they want to hear. In fact, they are likely to turn and snarl at anyone who insists on facts.

    Look at all the news stories recently that turn on lies and frauds. How many news consumers really care much?

    You and I do because we are trying to get a serious discussion going in an area dominated by lies, fraud, and popular foolishness (Darwinism). But, let’s face it, we are a minority.

    The average high school science teacher is perfectly willing to get up on her hind legs and spout Darwinism, even if she knows or suspects it would not stand rigorous testing in terms of accounting for the history of life.

    The union will back her, with help from the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby, and that is what matters.

    * It was way more difficult in the 1970s, when one could arrive at the library in a snowstorm only to discover that it was closed due to bad weather conditions. Just to find out about the government of the Cayman Islands or something. Ring so sorry. Today, it is only a click away – provided that the site is not fraudulent.

    So back then veracity was much more important than it is now. Now it is all style, catering to worldviews, etc.

    The big worry now should be government and other interference with finding out the facts. See, for example, troll house news. It probably won’t just be the “other guys” doing it.

    Does this help?

  2. 2
    Larry Moran says:


    What do you think of Bill O’Reilly?

  3. 3
    Virgil Cain says:

    Bill O’Reilly is more honest and has more integrity than any evolutionist.

  4. 4
    Virgil Cain says:

    Why do people keep voting known liars into office?

    If, because of his known lies, no one watches his segment and ratings tank, they will can him. The only show worth watching on that channel is “Caught On Camera”- they better keep him off of that. 😉

  5. 5
    bb says:

    “What do you think of Bill O’Reilly?” – I think he’s full of himself like Larry Moran. But, unlike Brian Williams, he’s up front with his stance on issues instead of pretending to be an objective reporter.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    Is NBC thinking of replacing Brian Williams with Bill O’Reilly?

    That would be awesome!

  7. 7
    mike1962 says:

    Barry, everyone is a liar, including you. I happen to like B.W. and I think his lie was a smallish infraction. Who are you going to nominate to be less of a liar? No such person. Including you and me. Grace is in order.

  8. 8
    Querius says:

    I heard that Brian Williams now claims he’s an African American.

    Just kidding, but I bet it would fly.


  9. 9
    mike1962 says:



  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    To echo mike1962’s observation

    “everyone is a liar”

    I challenge any adult to try to make it through a week, shoot even one day, being 100% absolutely, and completely, honest.
    It is a lot harder than it sounds.

    Of related interest is Benjamin Franklin’s quest for moral perfection.

    Benjamin Franklin’s Pursuit of the Virtuous Life – 2008
    Excerpt: ,,at the age of 20, Ben Franklin set his loftiest goal: the attainment of moral perfection.
    “I conceiv’d the bold and arduous project of arriving at moral perfection. I wish’d to live without committing any fault at any time; I would conquer all that either natural inclination, custom, or company might lead me into.”
    In order to accomplish his goal, Franklin developed and committed himself to a personal improvement program that consisted of living 13 virtues.
    “Tho’ I never arrived at the perfection I had been so ambitious of obtaining, but fell far short of it, yet I was, by the endeavour, a better and a happier man than I otherwise should have been if I had not attempted it.”

    Verses, Quote, and Music:

    Romans 3:23
    for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

    “Not Perfect Just Forgiven”
    -bumper sticker;qv=90

    Sidewalk Prophets – You Love Me Anyway (Official Video)

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
    And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    Just sayin’

  12. 12
    Blue_Savannah says:

    The inmates are running the asylum.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Here’s an interesting thought. What do you think motivated Brian Williams to lie?

    Why would someone who makes $10 million a year feel the need? 10 million a year.

    I’m just asking.


  14. 14
    Axel says:

    He probably came from a fairly monied background, and it sometimes happens – perhaps more often than among the poorer folk – that the children of such parents don’t get the parental love that the poorer folk tend to get. Toffs often feel closer to their nanny when they grow up than to their own mother.

    I remember a TV programme where an orphan lad had done quite well in business, and eventually discovered his family. His mother had been forced to give him up for adoption or to an orphanage for one reason or another, as did happen several decades ago. They were a very warm, working-class family, and we saw him taking one of his brothers out on a motor-boat he owned.

    The thing is, he would have given up all his affluence to have grown up in his family with his brothers and sisters. Anyway it was a happy ending. The point of course being that an affluent background doesn’t necessarily signify a healthy development and happiness.

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    I think what Williams did was wrong, it was a serious lapse of journalistic integrity, but let’s not get too self-righteous about it. To quote Dr Gregory House, “”It’s a basic truth of the human condition that everybody lies. The only variable is about what.”

  16. 16
    Seversky says:

    News @ 1

    The average high school science teacher is perfectly willing to get up on her hind legs and spout Darwinism, even if she knows or suspects it would not stand rigorous testing in terms of accounting for the history of life.

    The union will back her, with help from the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby, and that is what matters.

    Maybe in Canada, not so much in the US

    The researchers examined data from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, a representative sample of 926 public high school biology instructors. They found only about 28 percent of those teachers consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology.

    In contrast, Berkman and Plutzer found that about 13 percent of biology teachers “explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light.” Many of these teachers typically rejected the possibility that scientific methods can shed light on the origin of the species, and considered both evolution and creationism as belief systems that cannot be fully proven or discredited

    Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the “cautious 60 percent,” who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. “Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy,” they said.

    Berkman and Plutzer conclude that “the cautious 60 percent fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments.” As a result, “they may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists.”

Leave a Reply